Capitalism or Socialism?

Donald Byrne over at Catholic Journal has an excellent look at both our horrid fiscal situation (yes, we really are going bankrupt) and points out that that in our most-desired goals (prosperity and equity), free market capitalism does much better than State socialism.  Essentially, the imposition of socialistic policies in the United States have exacerbated wealth disparities – if Obama’s goal was really to “spread the wealth around”, he’d be reading Hayek and changing course.  Byrne concludes:

…The goals that competitive free market capitalism brings society toward are efficiency and equity on the microeconomic level and high employment and a reasonable degree of price level stability as well as a consensus driven rate of economic growth.  The decisions of the many, NOT the few, dictate what an economy will produce in the way of goods and services, in what manner those goods will be produced and in distribution of income (the reward of the goods and services produced) with maximum freedom to the people as consumers and productive resources.  It is an economic system that is based on the principle of subsidiarity, again, where the decision-making is driven down to the lowest level possible…after all, who knows/understands better than the individual (in most cases) what is best for them?

And there’s that word I keep using – “subsidiarity”.  Remember, in the end all our fights are to secure for us “subsidiarity” – the right of individuals and localities to decide for themselves the best means of living their lives.  It is at the core of American political morality – it is why our Declaration asserts that government’s must rule by consent, and why the 9th and 10th amendments were added to the Constitution.  It is doubtful that many of the Founders had read deeply in to Catholic social teaching, but in this case they didn’t have to….anyone with a bit of wisdom will swiftly understand his inability to dictate to others, and others far away from his own community.

Obama’s crime against Americanism (because that is what is amounts to) is to suppose that he and those in power with him can determine what is best for everyone.  That they can justly “spread the wealth around” and come to a superior outcome than the individuals, themselves, could achieve.  Not only is this wrong philosophically, it is also wrong in strictly practical terms.  The erosion of the middle class, the destruction of America’s ability to make, mine and grow things, the bankrupting of our nation and the moral decline of the populace are directly traceable to socialistic attempts to decree an outcome, rather than allow things two work themselves out through the interplay of free people.

The only quibble I have with Byrne is over the use of the word “capitalism”.  We should more emphasize the term “free market” than the word “capitalism” because capitalism has come to mean in the public mind a collection of Ivy League educated board room trolls, and the government-subsidized crony-capitalist.  Our fight is not to make the world safe for GE; not to make smooth the path of Government Motors…but to free up the market so that average men and women can enter it, using their own means of production, to create wealth for themselves, their families and their communities.

In practical, political terms I think we’d do much better this way.  What we have growing in the United States is a populist revolt against the Ruling Class.  Sickened by the corruption of politics and the economy, the people are demanding that those who have ruined things be tossed out, while those who are willing to work obtain the greatest reward.  We’ll go further – obtain more power to reform, that is – if we hitch ourselves to this popular revolt, and we can best do that by clearly identifying ourselves in complete opposition to what is currently wrong.

As we enter the Great Debate of 2012, we’ll have Obama telling everyone that a victory for free markets means granny being thrown over the cliff.  Allied with Obama will be those crony capitalists who will warn that failure to support “too big to fail” corporations will be a disaster.  We must expose these lies – we must present a vision of America free and prosperous, and explain that all socialist plans (regardless of what label they are given) will lead to poverty, dependence and a divided, dysfunctional America sliding towards tyranny.  Our question must be – who do you trust:  Obama or yourself?  Make that the issue of 2012 and we’ll win so big a victory that liberalism will not trouble us again for 20 years.

23 thoughts on “Capitalism or Socialism?

  1. Cluster August 4, 2011 / 10:43 am

    For the vast majority of industries, the only regulatory agency needed by the federal government is the justice department. Right now the Obama regime is strangling the economy with massive amounts of regulation:

    http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/08/03/report-obama-administration-added-95-billion-in-red-tape-in-july

    Most business’s now have to have a team of accountants just to navigate through the bullshit, and these regulations, mind you, are being placed upon these business’s from a guy who has never even managed a Jack in the Box.

    The good news is that this will result in his 2012 defeat, but don’t tell that to the foamed up sycophants that are heavily invested in the Obama knee pad industry. Bodie, are you listening?

    • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 3:39 pm

      The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule provides cleaner air and healthier lives for millions of Americans

      Estimated Annual Number of Adverse Health Effects Avoided Due to Implementing the CSAPR*
      Health Effect Number of Cases Avoided
      Premature mortality 13,000 to 34,000
      Non-fatal heart attacks 15,000
      Hospital and emergency department visits 19,000
      Accute bronchitis 19,000
      Upper and lower respiratory symptoms 420,000
      Aggravated asthma 400,000
      Days when people miss work or school 1.8 million
      *Impacts avoided due to improvements in PM2.5 and ozone air quality in 2014

      The CSAPR will help avoid tens of thousands of premature deaths and illnesses, achieving hundreds of billions of dollars in public health benefits. Pollution reductions will also lead to improvements in visibility in national and state parks, and increased protection for sensitive ecosystems including Adirondack lakes and Appalachian streams, coastal waters and estuaries, and forests.

      The benefits of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule far outweigh the costs of the rule.

      The final rule yields $120 to $280 billion in annual health and environmental benefits in 2014, including the value of avoiding 13,000 to 34,000 premature deaths. This far outweighs the estimated annual costs of CSAPR. The $800 million in annual projected costs of this rule in 2014, along with the roughly $1.6 billion per year in capital investments already under way as a result of CAIR, are improving air quality for over 240 million Americans. This rule will not disrupt a reliable flow of affordable electricity for American consumers and businesses. Health benefits will be achieved at a very low cost, and while the effect on prices for specific regions or states may vary, they are well within the range of normal electricity price fluctuations. Any such costs will be greatly outweighed by the benefits.

    • Cluster August 4, 2011 / 4:42 pm

      Well aside from the completely made up numbers, what your saying is that without government rules, business’s will completely decimate their communities with pollution and filth in the name of profit, even though they live and raise children in those communities. You are a well bred statist stool, a useful idiot in other words.

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 5:03 pm

        These are numbers from the EPA. The argument is companies have short term goals i.e. the next-quarter-bottom-line that don’t factor costs borne by the public.

        Could you tell me a rule for which government agencies numbers I am supposed to believe and when?

      • Cluster August 4, 2011 / 5:06 pm

        Could you tell me a rule for which government agencies numbers I am supposed to believe and when? – barstool

        Hint: When they “estimate” benefits out to 2014 – your bullshit meter should red line. Didn’t the government tell us in 1968 that the Great Society would dramatically reduce poverty? Well?

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 5:15 pm

        That’s a rule for when not to believe. I do like your rule though.

        I’ll use it for when agencies estimate threats that are sure to happen in the intermediate future. Now we can cut the DOD by 50% and don’t have to believe Boehner will cut the budget at all. I can also discount anyone talking about the price of commodity X in the next 5 years and economists in general.

      • Cluster August 4, 2011 / 5:20 pm

        That’s a pretty good rule of thumb stool. Nobody has the crystal ball, and they are wrong, more often than right.

        Yesterday you got on me for saying that were “under siege”, and I am not sure why. Even though we live our personal day to day lives in relative peace, don’t ever forget that there are still thousands of mal intended islamic jihadists planning and waiting for the right opportunity to do us harm. That threat is real and on going.

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 5:56 pm

        Cluster

        I reckon my odds of encountering a terrorist as near zero (though I was invited to a private dinner with Boehner LOL). I don’t see the looters in the hood waiting to take my stuff. I don’t see the government kicking down my door to haul me away in the middle of the night.

        My life is relatively boring, no drug shootouts, no jihads, no Chinese invasion,… If I believed that there were terrorists all around maybe I could convince the public school systems to stop giving males ADHD medicine to make them “behave”.

  2. Amazona August 4, 2011 / 10:52 am

    The decisions of the many, NOT the few, dictate what an economy will produce in the way of goods and services, in what manner those goods will be produced and in distribution of income (the reward of the goods and services produced) with maximum freedom to the people as consumers and productive resources.

    This is the essence of the Constitutional model of government, a summary of the TEA Party movement goal. Its name. Taxed Enough Already, indicates a focus just on taxation, but the movement is really about a return to a Constitution-determined United States government.

    Obama’s crime against Americanism (because that is what is amounts to) is to suppose that he and those in power with him can determine what is best for everyone.

  3. bardolf August 4, 2011 / 4:35 pm

    Mark

    It’s time for a thread about how Obama is to blame for the big sell off on Wall Street today.

    • Cluster August 4, 2011 / 4:43 pm

      You don’t think he is??

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 5:08 pm

        No

        Yahoo says investors are worried about the debt crisis in Europe and the global economy. I don’t give causes to largely random events.

        DO you give him credit for the price of oil dropping?

      • Cluster August 4, 2011 / 5:15 pm

        The markets react to market conditions both present and future, which are bleak on both accounts, due in large part to the strangle hold Obama has on the economy.

        Oil prices react to supply, demand and stability. The supply has always outpaced demand, but now the ME is a little more quiet, which I believe is responsible. Obama, as usual, has done very little.

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 5:42 pm

        “The markets react to market conditions both present and future.”

        Well the market can’t react to its own future of course. I could say you are silly and don’t know about cause and effect. Instead I’ll assume the better and what you mean is they react to what they EXPECT from the future.

        The problem is that you are guessing (interpreting) what a group of people is guessing that a future group of unknown people will do. The official take at Yahoo is the situation in Europe which is in the hands of the Europeans.

        As regards Oil prices you haven’t included speculation which is the largest contributor to big price swings. No reason to give Obama credit or blame with the swings.

        The DJIA is up about 100 points over the last 11 years. That would be 8 of GWB and 3 of BHO. What those years have in common is not a socialist in chief. It is 10 years of war spending and a housing bubble.

    • Mark Noonan August 4, 2011 / 8:42 pm

      bardolf,

      Why not blame him for it? After all, he was instrumental in ensuring that economic policies would push stock prices higher even though there was no reason for it. What goes up on lies will come down on truth.

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 10:52 pm

        Go ahead and assign him the blame if that’s how you read the tea leaves. As I said Yahoo blamed it on the European mess.

        In the same breath you should give him credit for bringing down the price of oil. Hard to have it both ways.

  4. Green Mountain Boy August 4, 2011 / 6:42 pm

    I have never understood why someone would take thier hard eaned money and give to someone else to speculate with it. Not only that, you are paying someone to potentially LOSE it. To me it is like taking your paycheck, if it is given to you in paper form, taking it to a bank and depositing it and then going to the store to make your purchuse, which you do by writing a check. Another piece of paper.
    Kind of seems senseless to me.

  5. neocon1 August 4, 2011 / 6:45 pm

    Chris Christie Blasts ‘Crazies’ After Appointing Muslim Judge: The ‘Sharia Law Business Is Just Crap’

    No chris you are either stupid or uninformed.

    • neocon1 August 4, 2011 / 6:48 pm

      baldork

      It is 10 years of war spending and a housing bubble.

      precipitated by an attack larger than Pearl Harbor.
      and an out of control homosexual and commies in the donk party who were warned about the looming housing collapse and called us racists, and liars.

      • bardolf August 4, 2011 / 7:35 pm

        neoconehead

        exactly how long should we expect after 9/11 until the market recovers or are you saying that since the commies in the donk party will never give up that I should never invest in the stock market?

      • mitch August 4, 2011 / 9:30 pm

        Here we go again. Our nations fiscal problems are the result of homosexuality. Brilliant deduction from an avowed homophobe, islamaphobe, white supremacist KKK sympathiser, air conditioning repair person, Larry Sinclair fan and all around hateful, ignorant piece of protoplasm neocon1. Hopefully you are the only “1”.
        What’s amazing is that Mark Noonan allows you to post here. More of a statement about his lack of judgement than your lack of any human qualities. You suck big guy. And I mean the big one.

  6. Cluster August 4, 2011 / 7:19 pm

    Most liberal pundits, and progressives, are for more spending. Another big stimulus to help build and repair….wait for it…the nations infrastructure, which ironically was the intent of the first stimulus package, but evidently their short term memories are incapable of accessing that information. They are also saying that the “radical cuts” will hurt the economy, completely ignoring the fact that the debt deal cut nothing, and is only slowing down the rate of growth. In other words, the liberal pundits are fully in crazy

  7. jack silverman August 7, 2011 / 1:56 pm

    ” And there’s that word I keep using – “subsidiarity”. Remember, in the end all our fights are to secure for us “subsidiarity” – the right of individuals and localities to decide for themselves the best means of living their lives ”

    Well you aren’t going to get that by supporting free-market capitalism. You are totally, totally wrong.

Comments are closed.